Tanada vs Angara Digest

Download Tanada vs Angara Digest

Post on 14-Apr-2018

220 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/29/2019 Tanada vs Angara Digest

    1/4

    Tanada vs Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997

    Facts : This is a petition seeking to nullify the

    Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization

    (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the

    concurrence of herein respondents acting in their

    capacities as Senators via signing the said

    agreement.

    The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially

    its major trading partners, through the reduction of

    tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and

    industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities

    for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated

    with exporting and more investment in the country.

    These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the

    agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators,

    a free market espoused by WTO.

    Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO

    agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair

    Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative

    power. That the Filipino First policy of the

    Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign

    trading intervention.

    Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse

    of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

    jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its

    concurrence of the said WTO agreement.

    Held: In its Declaration of Principles and state

    policies, the Constitution adopts the generally

    accepted principles of international law as part of the

    law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace,

    equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity ,

    with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, thecountry is bound by generally accepted principles of

    international law, which are considered automatically

    part of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda

    international agreements must be performed in good

    faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but

    creates a legally binding obligation on the parties.

    Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in

    fact and reality be considered as absolute because it

    is a regulation of commercial relations among

    nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United

    Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty

    right under the concept of sovereignty as

    autolimitation. What Senate did was a valid exerciseof authority. As to determine whether such exercise

    is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of

    judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the

    said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO

    allows withdrawal of membership should this be the

    political desire of a member. Also, it should not be

    viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO

    remains as the only viable structure for multilateral

    trading and the veritable forum for the development

    of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation,

    stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the

    people be allowed, through their duly elected

    officers, make their free choice.

    Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

    Posted by matisa at 5:19 AM

    No comments:

    PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA,

    et.al v . HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HISCAPACITY AS

    EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

    et.al G.R. No. 187167, 16 July 2011,

    EN BANC(Carpio, J.)

    The conversion of internal waters into archipelagic

    waters will not risk the Philippines because an

    archipelagic State has sovereign power that extendsto the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines,

    regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.

    R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress in March

    2009 to comply with the terms of the United Nations

    Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which

    the Philippines ratified on February 27, 1984. Such

    compliance shortened one baseline, optimized the

    location of some base points around the Philippine

    archipelago and classified adjacent territories such

    as the Kalayaan Island Ground (KIG) and the

    Scarborough Shoal as regimes of islands whose

    islands generate their own applicable maritime

    zones. Petitioners, in their capacities as citizens,taxpayers or legislators assail the constitutionality

    of R.A. 9522 with one of their arguments contending

    that the law unconstitutionally converts internal

    waters into archipelagic waters, thus subjecting

    these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes

    passage under UNCLOS III, including over flight.

    Petitioners have contended that these passage rights

    will violate the Constitution as it shall expose

    Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime

    pollution hazard.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not R.A. 9522 is unconstitutional for

    converting internal waters into archipelagic waters

    HELD:

    Petition

    DISMISSED.

    The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional and is

    consistent with the Philippines national interest.

    http://www.blogger.com/profile/15797670286427560393http://pil-matisa.blogspot.com/2008/06/tanada-vs-angara-272-scra-18-may-2-1997.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797670286427560393http://pil-matisa.blogspot.com/2008/06/tanada-vs-angara-272-scra-18-may-2-1997.html
  • 7/29/2019 Tanada vs Angara Digest

    2/4

    Aside from being a vital step in safeguarding the

    countrys maritime zones, the law also allows an

    internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth

    of the Philippines maritime zones and continental

    shelf. The Court also finds that the conversion of

    internal waters into archipelagic waters will not risk

    the Philippines as affirmed in the Article 49 of the

    UNCLOS III, an archipelagic State has sovereignpower that extends to the waters enclosed by the

    archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth or

    distance from the coast. It is further stated that the

    regime of archipelagic sealanes passage will not

    affect the status of its archipelagic waters or the

    exercise of sovereignty over waters and air space,

    bed and subsoil and the resources therein

    MEJOFF VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS 90 PHIL 70

    BORIS MEJOFF, petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF

    PRISONS, respondent.

    1951 September 26

    FACTS

    This is a second petition for habeas corpus by Boris

    Mejoff, the first having been denied in a decision of

    this Court of July 30, 1949.

    "The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian

    descent who was brought to this country fromShanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese

    forces during the latter's regime in these Islands.

    Upon liberation he was arrested as a Japanese spy,

    by U. S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps.

    Thereafter the People's Court ordered his release.

    But the Deportation Board taking his case up, found

    that having no travel documents Mejoff was illegally

    in this country, and consequently referred the matter

    to the immigration authorities.

    After the corresponding investigation, the Board of

    Commissioners of Immigration on April 5, 1948,

    declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippines

    illegally in 1944, without inspection and admission bythe immigration officials at a designation port of

    entry and, therefore, it ordered that he be deported

    on the first available transportation to Russia.

    The petitioner was then under custody, he having

    been arrested on March 18, 1948.

    In October 1948 after repeated failures to ship this

    deportee abroad, the authorities removed him to

    Bilibid Prison at Muntinglupa where he has been

    confined up to the present time, inasmuch as the

    Commissioner of Immigration believes it is for the

    best interests of the country to keep him under

    detention while arrangements for his departure are

    being made."

    Over two years having elapsed since the decision

    aforesaid was promulgated, the Government has not

    found ways and means of removing the petitioner

    out of the country, and none are in sight, although, it

    should be said in justice to the deportation

    authorities, it was through no fault of theirs that no

    ship or country would take the petitioner.

    RULING

    The protection against deprivation of liberty without

    due process of law and except for crimes committed

    against the laws of the land is not limited to

    Philippine citizens but extends to all residents,

    except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.

    Moreover, by its Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 3) the

    Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles

    of international law as part of the law of Nation." And

    in a resolution entitled "Universal Declaration Of

    Human Rights" and approved by the General

    Assembly of the United Nations of which the

    Philippines is a member, at its plenary meeting on

    December 10, 1948, the right to life and liberty and

    all other fundamental rights as applied to all human

    beings were proclaimed.

    It was there resolved that "All human beings are born

    free and equal in degree and rights" (Art. 1); that

    "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set

    forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any

    kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,

    political or other opinion, nationality or social origin,

    property, birth, or other status" (Art. 2); that "Every

    one has the right to an effective remedy by the

    competent national tribunals for acts violating the

    fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution

    or by law" (Art. 8); that "No one shall be subjected to

    arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" (Art. 9 ); etc.

    Premises considered, the writ will issue commanding

    the respondents to release the petitioner from

    custody upon these terms: The petitioner shall be

    placed under the surveillance of the immigration

    authorities or their agents in such form and manner

    as may be deemed adequate to insure that he keep

    peace and be available when the Government is

    ready to deport him. The surveillance shall be

    reasonable and the question of reasonableness shall

  • 7/29/2019 Tanada vs Angara Digest

    3/4

    be submitted to this Court or to the Court of First

    Instance of Manila for decision in case of abuse.

    No costs will be charged

    Mejoff vs Director of Prisons 90 Phil 70

    Facts

    Boris Mejoff, a Russian, was captured as a Japanese

    spy by the US Army Counter Intelligence Corps on

    March 18, 1948. He was turned over to the Phil

    Commonwealth Government for appropriate

    disposition. His case was decided on by the Board of

    Commissioners of Immigration who declared him as

    an illegal alien. The Board ordered his immediate

    deportation. In the meantime, we was placed in

    prison awaiting the ship that will take him back home

    to Russia. Two Russian boats have been requested to

    bring him back to Russia but the masters refused as

    they had no authority to do so. Two years passed andMejoff is still under detention awaiting the ship that

    will take him home.

    This case is a petition for habeas corpus. However,

    the respondent held that the Mejoff should stay in

    temporary detention as it is a necessary step in the

    process of exclusion or expulsion of undesirable

    aliens. It further states that is has the right to do so

    for a reasonable length of time.

    Issue

    Whether or not Mejoff should be released from prison

    awaiting his deportation.

    Ruling

    The Supreme Court decided that Mejoff be released

    from custody but be placed under reasonable

    surveillance of the immigration authorities to insure

    that he keep peace and be available when the

    Government is ready to deport him. In the doctrine of

    incorporation, the Philippines in its constitution adops

    the generally accepted principles of international law

    as part of the law of Nations. Also, the Philippines has

    joined the United Nations in its Resolution entitled

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights in

    proclaiming that life and liberty and all other

    fundamental rights shall be applied to all humanbeings. The contention that he remains a threat of to

    the security of the country is unfounded as Japan and

    the US or the Phils are no longer at war.

    MEJOFF vs DIRECTOR OF PRISONS90 PHIL 70

    1.MEJOFF vs DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    90 PHIL 70

    FACTS: This was an original action in the Supreme

    Court for habeas corpus. The petitioner was a

    Russian national who was brought into the country as

    a secret operative of the Japanese forces. Upon

    liberation, he was arrested as a Japanese spy by the

    U.S. Army. Thereafter, the people's court ordered his

    release. But the Board of Commissioners of

    Immigration declared that he had entered thecountry illegally and ordered deportation.

    ISSUE: Whether the petitioner being a stateless

    person has the right to life and liberty being provided

    in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

    HELD: YES, The protection against deprivation of

    liberty without due process of law and except for

    crimes committed against the laws of the land is not

    limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all

    residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of

    nationality. This is being provided in "Universal

    Declaration of Human Rights" approved by the

    General Assembly of the United Nations which the

    Philippine is a member. The petitioner's entry into

    the Philippines was not unlawful; he was brought by

    the armed and belligerent forces of a de facto

    government whose decrees were law during the

    occupation. The theory on which the court is given

    the power to act is that the wrant for his deportation,

    which was not executed, is functus officio and the

    alien is being held without anny law.

    Petition is GRANTED

    Kuroda vs Jalandoni 83 Phil 171

    Facts

    Shinegori Kuroda, a former Lieutenant-General of the

    Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of

    the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines was

    charged before the Philippine Military Commission for

    war crimes. As he was the commanding general

    during such period of war, he was tried for failure to

    discharge his duties and permitting the brutal

    atrocities and other high crimes committed by his

    men against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of

    the Japanese forces, in violation of of the laws and

    customs of war.

    Kuroda, in his petition, argues that the Military

    Commission is not a valid court because the law thatcreated it, Executive Order No. 68, is

    unconstitutional. He further contends that using as

    basis the Hague Conventions Rules and Regulations

    covering Land Warfare for the war crime committed

    cannot stand ground as the Philippines was not a

    signatory of such rules in such convention.

    Furthermore, he alleges that the United States is not

    a party of interest in the case and that the two US

    prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines.

  • 7/29/2019 Tanada vs Angara Digest

    4/4

    Issue

    1.Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is

    constitutional

    2.Whether or not the US is a party of interest to this

    case

    RulingThe Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order No.

    68, creating the National War Crimes Office and

    prescribing rules on the trial of accused war

    criminals, is constitutional as it is aligned with Sec

    3,Article 2 of the Constitution which states that The

    Philippines renounces war as an instrument of

    national policy and adopts the generally accepted

    principles of international law as part of the law of

    the nation. The generally accepted principles of

    international law includes those formed during the

    Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention and other

    international jurisprudence established by United

    Nations. These include the principle that all persons,

    military or civilian, who have been guilty of planning,

    preparing or waging a war of aggression and...